As the Trump administration seeks to reclassify tens of thousands of civil service jobs into political appointments, Ford School professors Pamela Herd and Donald Moynihan note assert that “politicization of public services generally worsens public-sector outcomes.”
In a commentary in Science magazine, they argue that such political interference is particularly prone to hurt scientific research. “Agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes for Health (NIH) cannot meet their statutorily mandated scientific missions if politics, rather than scientific expertise, drive decision-making,” they write.
They note that the first few months of the administration already have shown how ideology can influence funding decisions which traditionally have been the scope of experts.”Funding choices that reflected the consensus of some of the best scientists in the world were reversed by nonscientists. Program officers have, at points, been told not to communicate with the scientific community or have had their engagement limited.”
The changes could affect the confidence of Americans that “federal employees will not have to choose between their job and scientific values in areas such as climate change, food safety, extreme weather forecasting, or public health.”
They note that the federal rulemaking process allows public comment on the proposed policy until May 23rd. And those comments can matter: “They must be read and responded to by federal officials and can provide the basis for courts overturning new rules from the executive branch.”
The basis of U.S. government investment in scientific research since 1945 has been to protect organizations from politicization. Herd and Moynihan warn that this administration “treats scientific independence as a threat to be minimized.”
The full commentary can be read here: Institutionalizing politicized science, Science, May 8, 2025
